[quote name='Jknight256' date='22 February 2012 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1329924090' post='1373119']
I wonder where infinty and northwoods are at i got 2 of the big 4 commenting
[/quote]

[color="#4169E1"]The other day after your success with stopping TDR's by turning on your virtual memory I started wondering if I had set mine too large (9202). I started thinking maybe I should have set mine smaller. So I divided 9202 by 2 and started using 4601. I have 6 GB of physical RAM. It was fine for awhile. Then while playing CoD MW3 multiplayer there were a bunch of big explosions and such and my system started bogging down bigtime like it has rarely ever done. I had graphics settings up really high. I had 2x in-game AA + 8xS AA (which is 1x2 SS + 4x MS) + 4x TrSSAA. Then it dawned on me that I had set my virtual memory lower the other day. I went and put it back at 9202. No further issues but I really haven't played very much since I changed it back. Now I know that BF3 is much more graphically-demanding than MW3 so..........

I would say put your virtual memory back at Recommended. BF3 Ultra is heavy.[/color]

I wonder where infinty and northwoods are at i got 2 of the big 4 commenting

The other day after your success with stopping TDR's by turning on your virtual memory I started wondering if I had set mine too large (9202). I started thinking maybe I should have set mine smaller. So I divided 9202 by 2 and started using 4601. I have 6 GB of physical RAM. It was fine for awhile. Then while playing CoD MW3 multiplayer there were a bunch of big explosions and such and my system started bogging down bigtime like it has rarely ever done. I had graphics settings up really high. I had 2x in-game AA + 8xS AA (which is 1x2 SS + 4x MS) + 4x TrSSAA. Then it dawned on me that I had set my virtual memory lower the other day. I went and put it back at 9202. No further issues but I really haven't played very much since I changed it back. Now I know that BF3 is much more graphically-demanding than MW3 so..........

I would say put your virtual memory back at Recommended. BF3 Ultra is heavy.

[quote name='nvtweakman' date='22 February 2012 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1329927068' post='1373166']
Supersampling FSAA has its advantages (mainly with alpha textures IMO), but it can also be a real performance killer.
[/quote]

[color="#4169E1"]Yeah, CoD MW3 looks the very sharpest with it. For awhile I was running the 2x2 SS. The 4x4 SS would start my system running like molasses.
Anyway my system had been handling everthing just fine until that one game shortly after I had halved my virtual memory setting.
Of course there was a new PhysX in yesterday's driver too. Dunno if that mattered. Still gotta try the PhysX that's newer than that one too.[/color]

[color="#4169E1"]Yeah, I know. I've been doing some research to catch up on AA info. The supersampling makes the game look much crisper though. Part of my lag with high graphics was probably partly related to my mouse report rate of 1000 and now I've lowered that to 500. Installed the newest PhysX and it works fine with CoD MW3. It's now available off NVidia site. It's newer than the one in the 295.73 driver as has already been stated.[/color]
http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx-9.12.0213-driver.html

@4x4 take your current resolution and quadruple it four times /omg.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':omg:' />

Yeah, I know. I've been doing some research to catch up on AA info. The supersampling makes the game look much crisper though. Part of my lag with high graphics was probably partly related to my mouse report rate of 1000 and now I've lowered that to 500. Installed the newest PhysX and it works fine with CoD MW3. It's now available off NVidia site. It's newer than the one in the 295.73 driver as has already been stated.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx-9.12.0213-driver.html